Housing benefits

Remove all ads!

So I reading this article today and I couldn't decide if I was more horrified or afraid. This comes from London, but has this conservative American wondering how the citizens of the UK could allow something like this to happen. I need to find out to make sure we don't do the same thing. The simple fact that she believes she is entitled to a five bedroom house is astonishing to me.

Spoiler

A single mother-of-six is getting more than £80,000 a year from the taxpayer to live in a £2million mansion in an exclusive London suburb.
Essma Marjam, 34, is given almost £7,000 a month in housing benefits to pay the rent on the five-bedroom villa just yards from Sir Paul McCartney's house and Lord's cricket ground.
She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, such as child benefit, to help look after her children, aged from five months to 14.

The four-storey house in Maida Vale has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double living room, large fitted kitchen-diner with French doors on to the landscaped garden and a state-of-the art buzzer entry system.
Astonishingly, it is understood Miss Marjam found the house on the internet through a private letting agency, rather than waiting for Westminster council to give her a vacant property on their books.
She then applied to the council for the £1,600-a-week benefit - the maximum amount the council allows.

Miss Marjam said: 'I moved here at the beginning of the month as I'm entitled to a five-bedroom house.
'I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn't have any houses big enough.
'I'm separated from my husband. He's a solicitor in Derby, but I don't know if he's working at the moment. He doesn't pay anything towards the kids. Things are quite difficult between us.
'The house is lovely and very big, but I don't have enough furniture to fill it.'

She does, however, have two large flat-screen televisions and several leather sofas, plus a large amount of children's toys scattered over the wooden floorboards.
During the week, vans from Argos and other home stores dropped off large purchases.

Miss Marjam does not work, as she spends all day looking after her children - Zekia, 14, Abdulhakim, 13, Jihad, 11, Hamza, ten, Ayman, two, and five-month-old Nasir.
The four eldest have the surname Benjamin, while the two youngest have the surname Khan.

Labour's controversial Local Housing Allowance enables council tenants to receive such high benefits to pay private landlords.
The maximum that can be claimed is set by central government and the allowances can be huge, leaving the taxpayer to foot the bill.
The Daily Mail has highlighted other outrageous examples, such as the single mother of eight receiving £90,000 a year to live in a £2.6million Notting Hill mansion.
Taxpayers are also picking up the £6,400-a-month bill to house Nasra Warsame, her seven children and her elderly mother in central London, with Westminster council also providing Mrs Warsame's husband and their eighth child with a two-bedroom flat nearby.
In total, 16 families are living in million-pound-plus London properties funded by the Local Housing Allowance.
Phillipa Roe, a Westminster councillor, said: 'We would like to see the entire system changed as the current rules are wrong and do not offer taxpayers value for money.
'We want to have more control to limit the amount of money which is paid out. Local councils are far better placed to determine benefit levels than ministers in Whitehall who won't know the facts on the ground.
'The Government has repeatedly pledged to reform housing benefit but failed to do so. The whole system needs a radical review and ministers should stop dragging their heels and get on and do it.'
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: 'It is not right that in London high rents have been able to distort the system, resulting in a small number of people getting excessively high payments.
'We took immediate action and capped the Local Housing Allowance in April. The plans we published in December go even further and will exclude high rents from LHA rate calculations.
'Only a very small minority of people receive such high rates of housing benefit. The average payment is £81 a week

 

It is ridiculous. At the current exchange rate, that's about $12,000 per month. I wouldn't want to see her and her children homeless, but that does not entitle her to live in a mansion. She was living in a three-bedroom apartment - which may be a little tight for six people, but there has to be something between a three-bedroom apartment and a mansion.

 

Where my mum lives there was a single woman in the same situation but was told that she could have a small council house or nothing. Say that, I think her name was British so of course, that limits her entitlement to everything in this country.

 

I noticed that, although I did not comment because I find the whole idea absurd regardless of the ethnicity or nomenclature of those involved.

 

If the council cannot provide housing then they are required to pay for rented accomidation in the mean time until a suitable property is found. If one is found and the woman refuses to relocate she risks losing all support in funding her current habitat.

As it is, people that accept a smaller proportion of housing benefit in pursuit of a home of their own choosing are often put on the backburner for finding a property for.

The system takes into account current savings in UK bank accounts and income of the mother. There are certain terms of recieving certain benefits but in the looks of this she is either playing the system very well or violating a number of conditions.

It could be her savings are all off shore, in which case they cannot be taken into account when evaluating benefit entitlement.

 

But if this is the case, and if she's declaring that she has no savings, isn't she committing benefit fraud? I know, there's no easy way (or any way at all maybe?) for the government to check, but that doesn't exclude the possibility.

 

The matter stands that the council can only check on what information is provided by the beneficiary or provided in confidence to the council as evidence of foul play.

I did a bit of work at the local council, East Dorset, and helped the fraud team for a week or so. As it stands there are so many hoops to jump through on both sides of the coin it's a red tape nightmare for all parties.

 

I've seen stories like this before, though none with London property values attached. Local councils standard stock simply doesn't have any houses big enough for families of this size. But of course when they go to buy one the only ones big enough are those which were designed as mansions.

 

I wonder how much attention this case would have gotten if the woman hadn't been named "Khan" and with a son named "Jihad". Just reading through this thread you can see the underlying added outrage, not only is someone getting undeserved and over the top help but a DARK PERSON who really shouldnt be there in the first place is getting it which makes it a billion times worse.

 

Oh, spare me, joacqin. I didn't read the OP's article all that closely and didn't happen to notice the names involved, and I was more than a little annoyed by it all.

Contrary to what far too many lefties would have you believe, it's not always about race.

 

crucis,
not always implies 'but often enough', in fact conceding that the point has merit. Is that what you wanted to say?

 

Generalize much? I don't agree with Joaquin's assessment either. I'm on the left. There are plenty of people on the far left that bring up the specter of racial injustice at times where it isn't particularly relevant, but not even Jeremiah Wright or Jesse Jackson would argue that it's always about race.

 

So no one but me sees the added outrage the woman's ethnicity causes? That not only is someone screwing the system but that that someone is a *foreigner*. Just look at the posts here, Silvery's is the most blatant but it is elsewhere and in the article itself. Do you think they would have written out all the names if they had been Jim, John, Jessica, Josh and Jenny?

I just find it amusing how selective people tend to be over welfare abuse and the cases that get attention. People are horribly offended if Muhammed has conned himself some undeserved welfare but can be almost congratulary if their mate Johnny has sweet talked the welfare lady into paying for his new nikes.

 

I think that applies to people who are right-handed as well.

Anyway, why are you people upset? If this woman has to live next to Paul McCartney, surely she shouldn't be expected to live in a lean-to. Imagine the shame, inviting Sir Paul over for tea, and not being able to offer him a choice of bathrooms if he needs to "go".

 

I find it absurd regardless of the race of people involved.

Perhaps things are different in Europe, but in the US, people do not tend to get ticked off that a certain race is receiving a benefit, but rather if the person is legally a citizen. People in the US get ticked off if they suspect an illegal immigrant is receiving some benefit because they are gaining a benefit that they are not contributing to.

I will concede that nearly all illegal immigrants are Hispanic, but I don't think the outrage is because they are Hispanic - it's that they are here illegally. I also do not mean to imply that NO ONE in the US is racist. They are certainly still around. There are also a lot of people that are anti-foreigner. (I always thought that was very strange, as anyone who isn't a Native American can trace their roots to some other continent.)

 

Aldeth, that is pretty much the case here, legal or illegal (although afaik it is damn near impossible to get any benefits around if you are illegal as our "socialist control state" knows who it's citizens are very well) but more whether you have "contributed" to the system. So an unemployed mother of eight who keeps popping out children but whose family has lived here for centuries is entitled to every benefit imaginable and if she dont get it it is a disgrace while if said mother happened to arrive in the country a mere decade ago she is a parasite on our system.

My point being is that there are millions upon millions of these people in the world, stupid, ignorant, thoughtless people who never contribute anything to anything but still expect, no demand that they get all their needs seen to. What case finds it's way to our boards? Well, this one with Miss Khan and her son Jihad.

 

While I can't say that I will actively look, but if I happen to read one where the names are more Anglican, I vow I will post it.

What are the odds that poor little Jihad will end up on a "no fly" list?